4.6 Review

Sample Preparation to Determine Pharmaceutical and Personal Care Products in an All-Water Matrix: Solid Phase Extraction

期刊

MOLECULES
卷 25, 期 21, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/molecules25215204

关键词

pharmaceuticals and personal care products; isolation; concentration; solid-phase extraction; cartridges; disks; online; dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction; water samples

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities
  2. ERDF (European Regional Development Fund) [RTI2018-097158-B-C31]
  3. Generalitat Valenciana [PROMETEO/2018/155]
  4. Generalitat Valenciana through a Santiago Grisolia [GRISOLIAP/2018/102, CPI-18-118]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) are abundantly used by people, and some of them are excreted unaltered or as metabolites through urine, with the sewage being the most important source to their release to the environment. These compounds are in almost all types of water (wastewater, surface water, groundwater, etc.) at concentrations ranging from ng/L to mu g/L. The isolation and concentration of the PPCPs from water achieves the appropriate sensitivity. This step is mostly based on solid-phase extraction (SPE) but also includes other approaches (dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction (DLLME), buckypaper, SPE using multicartridges, etc.). In this review article, we aim to discuss the procedures employed to extract PPCPs from any type of water sample prior to their determination via an instrumental analytical technique. Furthermore, we put forward not only the merits of the different methods available but also a number of inconsistencies, divergences, weaknesses and disadvantages of the procedures found in literature, as well as the systems proposed to overcome them and to improve the methodology. Environmental applications of the developed techniques are also discussed. The pressing need for new analytical innovations, emerging trends and future prospects was also considered.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据